Site Report 4: The Past and Future

Today’s U District reflects the architectural development and innovation of planners from the 1930s, ‘60s, and ‘80s. Only a couple scattered buildings in the district have been built in recent years (The Department of Planning and Development 33). The University District is unique because it presents a city of the past: one where urban, commercial, and residential elements clash. However, the neighborhood needs to prepare for change. The future of the U District is full of urban development, rezoning, and mass renovation.

Over the past 5 years, planners, developers, and residents have begun to imagine what the U District could become. The have rapidly produced comprehensive plans for redevelopment of the area. The opening of a Light Rail station in 2021 and the projected high population growth have incentivised the City of Seattle to designate the U District as a priority area (City of Seattle Design and Planning Department, Heatland 1). This means a lot of change to the neighborhood. Certain areas of the district will be rezoned to increase the height of buildings. Some planned developments will be 10-11 stories (1). According to the 2013 U-District Urban Design Framework - Support Analysis Memo, allowing for higher density will bring in a more affluent and older resident demographic. It will also increase the number of jobs and houses in the area (2).

As more people move into the U District, the need for urban renovation also rises. This has caused community members and planners to develop park plans and open spaces for people to enjoy. The 2015 University District Parks Plan outlines a proposal for revitalizing community interaction through public spaces. Its goal is to create a sustainable neighborhood that “provides a network of great streets and public spaces” and “balances regional influences with local character” (University District Partnership, Seattle Parks and Recreation, Department of Planning and Development 6). The plan includes cleaning up the streets by planting vegetation, trees, rain gardens, and other features along a north-south corridor of the District (15). It also proposes public spaces such as pocket plazas, expanded sidewalks, more parks, and a central square (32-33). This plan works to improve the appearance of the district to make it more friendly to pedestrians (i.e. pedestrians of a higher socioeconomic demographic than the transients who currently reside in the area.)

Other plans that focus on the appearance of the District are the 2014 U-District Retail Study & Strategy and the 2015 U District Green Streets Concept Plan. Both discuss renovating the physical appearance of the University District, specifically sections along the Ave. One proposed strategy is to improve the storefronts of Ave businesses (University District Partnership, Downtown Works, LLC. 24). By improving the facades, windows, signage, and interiors of retailers, the Ave could become a more successful consumer district. The U-District Retail Study & Strategy also had an issue with how many fast-food restaurants (specifically asian) are located on the Ave (19).

My block is located at the bottom section of “The Core.” According to the 2016 U District Urban Design Final Recommendation, “The Core is where the greatest changes would occur. Containing the new light rail station, adjacent to campus, and home to several existing high rise buildings and large development sites, the Core is the area best suited to accommodate growth” (Seattle City Government, Office of Planning and Community Development 16). My block will continue to be used for mixed residential and commercial use (17). Offices are located on the north-eastern side of the block, while apartment complexes take up the rest of the space. In the new narrative of the U District, my block will stand as an addition to the increased density and housing that this area has planned for itself.

Many developers in the U District hope to attract an affluent and older demographic of residents to the area. This would include a variety of seniors, families, and professionals. By bringing in a wealthier class of residents, developers can justify their construction cost because they know residents will be able to afford rent. Developers can also increase the desirability of an area by improving the living conditions and street amenities to entice more people to move. In the real estate market, this improvement will allow real estators to mark up rent prices: projecting an area as attractive. For the U District, this plan could work because the medicum home value is around $449,700 ("Seattle Gentrification Maps and Data”). This is a relatively low value for the Seattle area, so the parameters of the market make the U District look affordable to interested clients, especially for “older professionals and seniors wishing to downsize”(City of Seattle Design and Planning Department, Heatland 2).

It should be remembered, however, that a majority of residents in the U District are students and young professionals. The point of contention that rises with residential renovation is the effect it will have on the demographics of residents and shoppers. The implementation of the Light Rail will bring a larger variety of Seattleites to the U District. However, current frequenters of the Ave and U District businesses are UW students. Many of them can afford what is sold in the present shops and retailers. If the types of retailers were to change, so too would the affordability of the U District for students. Since the University of Washington’s relocation to the U District in 1895 (when the first term began in Denny Hall), student have been a major component of the area’s demographics. The Ave offers affordable off-campus dining and retail and the U District has always accommodated student oriented housing. It will be interesting to watch how this historic element clashes with the new forces of the future U District. All of this represents the broader trend of gentrification that occurs throughout the greater Seattle area.

Work Cited

City of Seattle Design and Planning Department, and Heatland. U District Urban Design Framework Support Analysis Memo. 2013. UDresidentialmarketanalysis2013.pdf

Historic Preservation and Development Authority, Folke Nyberg, Victor Steinbrueck. The University District: An Inventory of Buildings and Urban Design Resources. 1975, https://historicseattle.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/University-District-1.pdf

Klingle, Matthew. Emerald city : an environmental history of Seattle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.

Long, Priscilla. "HistoryLink.org." Seattle's University Bridge Opens on July 1, 1919. - HistoryLink.org. The SCHOONER Project, The Hon. Jan Drago, Seattle City Council, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, 2001. Web. 15 Mar. 2017

Nielsen, Roy G. UniverCity: The City within City, the Story of the University District. Seattle: U Lions Foundation, 1986. Print.

Phelps-Goodman, Ethan. "4041 ROOSEVELT WAY NE." Seattle in Progress. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

Seattle City Government, Office of Planning and Community Development. U District Urban Design: Final recommendations: zoning, development standards, affordable housing requirements, and amenities. 2016. UDUrbanDesignFinalRecommendations2016.pdf

Seattle Department of Planning and Development, Seattle Department of Transportation. U District Green Streets Concept Plan. 2015. UDGreenStreetsConceptPlan2015.pdf

"Seattle Gentrification Maps and Data." Governing. E.Republic, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

The Department of Planning and Development. University District Urban Design Framework: existing conditions report. 2012. UDhistoryandexistingconditionsreport2014.pdf

“Train wreck in University District, August 20, 1894,” University District Stories, accessed March 15, 2017, http://courses.washington.edu/hstaa208/items/show/755.

University District Partnership, and Downtown Works, LLC. U-District Retail Study & Strategy. 2014. UDRetailStudy2014.pdf

University District Partnership, Seattle Parks and Recreation and Department of Planning and Development. University District Parks Plan 2015 Update: Strategies for Providing Open Space. 2015. UDParksPlan2015.pdf

Vulcan Real Estate, Genesis Properties LLC, and Runberg Architecture Group. University District Supplemental Package Design Recommendation Proposal. 2013. DRProposal3013235AgendaID4266.pdf